Thread by @neil_abrams

A couple weeks ago I caught some flak from Caitlin Johnstone since I didn’t offer any evidence when I pointed out the nonsense in her Ukraine essay.

You wanted receipts, @caitoz? Well, here are your receipts.

On the “moronic cynicism” of Caitlin Johnstone: A thread:

This thread doubles as a short course on the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2014-21. It covers Russia’s 2014 occupation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of the east, namely the Donbas (the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk). It also examines the leadup to the 2022 invasion.

The sheer number of delusions and falsehoods in this one paragraph by @caitoz is such that they can’t be untangled in a single thread. So this will have to be a two-parter. Part I examines the onset of war in 2014. Part II will address NATO, Zelensky, and the 2022 invasion.

A good portion of Part I will rehash my last thread, which debunked the claims that certain tankies have put forth about the Minsk peace process. Apologies for the repetition, but it was unavoidable. Part II will cover new ground.

https://twitter.com/neil_abrams/status/1583459564950724608?s=20&t=0OL1aLdzHxB0LaFfsJ5yyQ

I really could have written this about any tankie, whether @aaronjmate, @MaxBlumenthal, or @FiorellaIsabelM. Not only do they all spread spurious drivel about Ukraine; they spread the *exact same* spurious drivel about Ukraine.

This gets to a key point about tankie Ukraine discourse: It’s basically an idiotic game of telephone among grown-ass adults.

The reason I’m focusing on Johnstone, in particular, is that she (rightly) called me out for failing to back up my accusations, so I felt compelled to respond. Besides, the portion of her essay above serves as a useful jumping-off point to scrutinize some common tankie fictions.

But before we get to the matter at hand, I wanted to briefly explain why I call these people “tankies,” as I’ve been getting some criticism for using the term.

“Tankies” originally denoted Western leftists who supported or excused the Soviet Union’s imperialist, authoritarian conduct. The word itself referred to the Soviet tanks that suppressed the anti-Soviet uprisings in communist Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

In my view, there are more than a few parallels between those who once excused the Soviet tanks invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia and those who now excuse the Russian tanks invading Ukraine—enough, I think, to justify applying the term “tankie” to both.

In fact, the second iteration of the tankie phenomenon is even dumber than the first, since the regime these ostensible progressives are simping for is just about the exact opposite of “left-wing.”

Yes, “tankie” is a pejorative term. But considering the shameless, evidence-free arguments they advance, I think it conveys about as much respect as these pardoners of Russian imperialism deserve. So I’ll call them tankies. I won’t apologize for it, either.

Before we get started, here’s the link to Johnstone’s recent piece as well as the screenshots in which I marked all the demonstrable falsehoods in that one portion of it:
caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/its-not-okay…

Let’s pick it apart, starting with this section right here:

Did the U.S. really “foment” the Euromaidan uprising in 2014, in which millions of Ukrainians ousted their president? I dealt with this claim in my recent Euromaidan thread, which you can find here:

https://twitter.com/neil_abrams/status/1573307576959512576?s=20&t=D10SJic1Qe6SyFXFzZs7cg

Since many of you won’t want to read all that, I’ll quickly summarize the relevant portion. First, the idea that anyone can *make* 8.5 million people storm the streets and overthrow a president is absurd on its face.

Here’s the source for that number:

https://twitter.com/neil_abrams/status/1573309274742292481?s=20&t=VFoDc7iaXTkNiV12a9k_LQ

Tankies also like to bring up the leaked transcript of a phone call between U.S. diplomats Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt. It’s from late-Jan or early-Feb. 2014 and supposedly shows them discussing possible replacements for Yanukovych. bbc.com/news/world-eur…

But there’s one tiny problem with the “Victoria-Nuland-as-Evil-Mastermind” theory. Ukraine has both a president and prime minister. Nuland & Pyatt are discussing who should become PM alongside Yanukovych, not who should replace him as president.

https://twitter.com/neil_abrams/status/1579299535557636097?s=20&t=i81zFPV57uTcBargd4J9yw

Nor was Nuland trying to imperiously force this arrangement on an unwilling Ukraine. It was Yanukovych himself who, on Jan. 25th, 2014, originally put forth the idea. That’s the proposal Nuland & Pyatt are discussing. washingtonpost.com/world/ukraine-…

Given the brutal violence Yanukovych had just unleashed upon protesters over the previous few days, the opposition initially rejected his offer. They’d eventually sign a similar deal the following month, only for Yanukovych to flee like a coward before the ink was dry.

So @caitoz’s claim that the Euromaidan uprising was “fomented” by the U.S. is demonstrably false. But what of the notion that the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine are “Moscow-loyal?” Do these regions want to join Russia? Do they support Russia’s war on Ukraine?

No, Ukrainians in the east and south are not remotely “Moscow-loyal.” To begin with, they overwhelmingly reject union with Russia, a subject I dealt with in an earlier thread:

https://twitter.com/neil_abrams/status/1577658781860757507?s=20&t=Y2f3g-rGBDrO7GcW9v9k8A

Even in Crimea, the only province in which ethnic Russians comprise a majority, there was *never* majority support for joining Russia. Below are results from the 1991 independence referendum as well as a Feb. 2014 poll carried out during the Euromaidan revolt.

Link to the Feb. 2014 poll: kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=…

That latter poll, which showed just 41% of Crimeans favoring union with Russia, was taken in Feb. 2014. Barely a month later, Russia, now in control of Crimea, held a “referendum” on the same question in which—amazingly!—a full 97% now endorsed union. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crim…

In case it needs stating, the notion that Crimean support for joining Russia surged from 41% to 97% in the span of a single month is laughable. It should leave no doubt, lest any remain, that Russia simply concocted the “referendum” result out of thin air.

In fact, there exists abundant evidence of the rampant fraud and intimidation that marred Russia’s pretend-vote on Crimea’s annexation in 2014. Google it. kyivpost.com/article/conten…

But despite the obvious staging of the 2014 Crimea “referendum,” @caitoz, as if congratulating Kim Jong Un on a glorious election victory, just accepts the Kremlin’s word that 97% of the population supported union with Russia. Who the hell wins 97% of any vote, anywhere?

The motivated gullibility displayed by @caitoz here is illustrative of the broader tankie view of the world, which John Ganz labels “moronic cynicism:” A veneer of cleverness masking an embarrassing naivete.

You can find Ganz at @lionel_trolling. johnganz.substack.com/p/some-thought…

One objection I received to my previous threads is that the Feb. 2014 poll cited above asks about uniting not one’s home region with Russia but rather all of Ukraine with Russia. Fair enough; attitudes toward the latter may not reflect opinions on the former.

The two polls below, conducted just two months apart, shed light on this issue. The Feb. 2014 poll (left) asks respondents their opinion on uniting all of Ukraine with Russia. The other, from April (right), asks what they think of uniting only their home region with Russia.

Links to each poll:

Feb. 2014 (left): kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=…

Apr. 2014 (right): kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=…

Note the similarity in answers to the two polls. It suggests that opinions on uniting the entirety of Ukraine with Russia actually are a pretty good indicator of attitudes on uniting only one’s particular region with Russia. So there you go.

Crimea’s not included in the Apr 2014 poll, as it was now under Russian occupation. Still, other agencies did conduct polls in Crimea after Russia invaded. In contrast to the 2-14 poll, they appear to show overwhelming support for joining Russia.

Can you imagine why? I can.

The violently repressive atmosphere in Russian-occupied Crimea is well-documented. I don’t know about you, but had I lived in Crimea back then and some stranger showed up to ask what I think about life under Russian rule, I too would say “it’s great!” epc.eu/content/PDF/18…

The bias inherent in any survey done under Russian occupation can sometimes be revealing. Take this 2019 poll from the Donbas where, even in Russian-controlled areas, a majority *rejected* joining Russia. Imagine how much higher the true figure must be.

https://twitter.com/DietmarPichler1/status/1577959337959604224?s=20&t=bPzbWa13lpjRRYFuIkJKlg

But if Ukrainians reject union with Russia, do they support Russia’s current war on the country? Given that 87% of all Ukrainians, including 57% of ethnic Russians, reject any territorial concessions in exchange for peace, the answer is definitely no. reuters.com/world/europe/n…

Moving on, is @caitoz correct to describe those who fought for independence in eastern Ukraine as “separatists?” Not unless by “separatists” she means “actual Russian army units and irregulars sent by the Kremlin who weren’t really even pretending to be separatists.”

Soon after Russian forces occupied Crimea in Feb. 2014, the Kremlin launched a major initiative to stir up separatist, anti-government protests in other parts of eastern Ukraine.

That spring, the Kremlin financed and organized demonstrations of paid protesters across the east and south. The idea was to create the appearance of an organic local uprising. Leaked communications from Putin adviser Sergei Glazyev reveal the scope of these efforts.

Source for the Glazyev leaks, including transcripts: khpg.org/en/1551054011

But the Kremlin’s campaign to foment a rebellion turned out to be a flop. As the polls above show, there just weren’t enough locals who supported independence, much less entertained the possibility of doing something about it.

Since no separatist movement materialized, Putin decided to manufacture one himself—or at least create the appearance of it—by sending irregular Russian forces into eastern and southern Ukraine. imrussia.org/media/pdf/An_I…

Igor Girkin, a colonel in the FSB, the Russian state security agency, who has confessed to war crimes in the Donbas, helpfully explained that he “did pull the trigger for war” in 2014 after being sent there to take command of Russian irregulars. rbc.ru/politics/20/11…

Here’s Alexander Borodai, the Kremlin-installed leader of Russia’s Donetsk proxy state, in Aug. 2014:

“I came here as a crisis manager, if you like, a starter-upper. A lot has been done over the past months. The DPR has established itself as a state.” bbc.com/russian/intern…

Want to know what Borodai’s doing now? He’s a deputy in the Russian parliament for Putin’s ruling party.

But Putin’s irregulars were swiftly beaten back by Ukraine’s military—an amazing feat given the pathetic state Yanukovych’s kleptocrats had left it in.

So to save the fledgling “rebellion,” Putin, in Aug. 2014, resorted to something more radical: He sent in the army.

Russian defense expert Igor Sutyagin estimated that several thousand Russian regulars were present in the Donbas at this time, a number that would peak at 10,000 by mid-December 2014. static.rusi.org/201503_bp_russ…

The OSCE, whose representatives have been observing events on the ground in the Donbas since 2014, documented the presence there of thousands of Russian soldiers. osce.usmission.gov/russias-ongoin…

In September 2014, the Russian Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, an independent NGO in Russia, estimated that 10-15,000 regular Russian troops had already been sent to Ukraine. theguardian.com/world/2014/sep….

In 2016, the International Criminal Court found evidence of “direct military engagement between the respective armed forces of the Russian Federation and Ukraine … from 14 July 2015 at the latest.” icc-cpi.int/sites/default/…

Aleksandr Zhuchkovsky, one of many Russian Nazis (yes, really) the Kremlin sent to command irregular forces in eastern Ukraine from 2014 onward, conceded that the “rebellion” would have failed had it not been for the Russian military’s timely arrival. khpg.org/en/1565889311

Alexander Borodai, the first “prime minister” of Russia’s proxy state in Donetsk, likewise admitted that the “rebellion” could have never survived without Russian support. khpg.org/en/1565889311

Leaked communications from Vladislav Surkov, a top Putin adviser, demonstrate just how meticulously the Kremlin micromanaged the administration of the “rebel” territories in Donetsk and Luhansk. medium.com/dfrlab/breakin…

Were there homegrown separatists fighting alongside Russian troops? Yes, plenty. But the point is, and the evidence shows, that local separatism wasn’t nearly strong enough to mount an insurgency on its own—not without massive Russian support including the Russian military.

There’s a separatist movement in California too, but that hardly means it could launch, much less sustain, an armed insurgency against the United States of America.

So, no, @caitoz, the 2014-21 Donbas war was not some organic separatist rebellion and the evidence above proves just how ludicrous the notion is. It was a Russian invasion, plain and simple.

Stay tuned for Part II, in which we'll examine Johnstone’s next batch of nonsense. /End